Are you sure? This snip (par 4-4-1 c.) from the link you posted seems to say otherwise:
I knew that, but I'm trying to get at something else.
Again, that much I knew, but I'm asking (or attempting to ask) about a GPS filed route to a hypothetical airport beyond the 22/40 nm limits, where you say radar is required. In other words, those "limits" don't seem to apply to GPS random routes according to the paragraph I cited from 7110.65.
FAA Order 7110.65 specifically requires radar monitoring for flight below the published MEA on an airway. And to accept a clearance to a fix, you must have sufficient equipment to be able to determine lateral deviation off course as well as arrival at that fix. With only a VOR, you cannot determine arrival over 2P2.
You cannot legally use a DME cut or VOR radial to identify a point not defined by that DME cut or VOR radial. One could legally obtain a clearance direct to ESC161021 (ESC 161 radial/21 DME fix), but a) that's not the same as being cleared direct 2P2, and b) you'd need a DME receiver which the OP doesn't have. With only VOR, you could obtain a clearance from ESC via the ESC 161 radial to the intersection of that radial with the MNM 068 radial (assuming there are no published or NOTAM restrictions on that radial), but again, that is not the same as being cleared direct to 2P2. This may seem like semantics, but it is the rule.
I agree,provided the aircraft has either DME or IFR GPS, and suggested much the same above. Note that with the elevations in that area (starting with the lake surface at 580 MSL), 1500 MSL is going to be too low to be legal, but I'm sure the controller can sort that out.
That was the impression I had. If I was wrong, then a clearance such as you suggested would be legal.
Yes, you do. You either have to have the field in sight for the visual or an approved procedure to get there (the IAP) to be cleared for one of those options.
Why not, indeed? And I so suggested above.
You appeared to widen the discussion to include points beyond 22 nm of a NAVAID that are on an airway with this general statement:
But my cite seems to say radar is not a requirement for certain equipped aircraft on up to 500 nm route segments. Just trying to verify that I understand that correctly, not trying to play "gotcha". Also, it was new language, maybe you hadn't seen it?
91.205(d)(2), which the FAA says means this even if Steven personally disagrees.
I'm trying to see if it helps others by not needing to rely on radar if they happen to be going somewhere beyond 22 nm on an airway or beyond 40 nm of a low altitude VOR. It looks to me like, with the specified RNAV equipment, they can.
)I thought made it clear I was speaking about a VOR-only airplane regarding a clearance direct 2P2 being prohibited by 91.205(d)(2). I also said it was legal if the OP had some sort of RNAV (VOR/DME or GPS). And 91.177 isn't relevant to that question or its answer -- it doesn't matter what altitude you're at.
Yes, I was referring to you, but now I'm actually not sure of the context. In any case, if I understand correctly, you're talking about radar monitoring of aircraft navigating with the use of ground-based NAVAIDs. I was talking about random routes, including RNAV routes not based on NAVAIDs. I seem to recall you saying that radar monitoring is required on such routes as well. JO7110.65U, Section 5-5-1 said that radar separation is required on such routes, with an exception for GPS-equipped aircraft on random routes in Anchorage Center airspace, and obviously radar separation is impossible outside of a radar environment. But from your later post, it seems 7110.65U is superseded by 7110.65V, and section 5-5-1 now reads somewhat differently. Now the exception applies to GNSS-equipped aircraft NOT on a random impromptu route. I'm not sure what "impromptu" means here (it was in parentheses in the previous version of the order, making me think it's just descriptive) but if the meaning is the same as a random route, then it seems that radar separation is still required for /G aircraft on random routes.
No I don't. As I said, I'm just not sure it's legal. Until John's post earlier in the thread of a route clearance to a private field, I'd never heard of that being done when there was no official data published.
It's not the clearance along a radial to a fix defined by radial+distance that I was questioning, but the ability to identify the clearance limit if it's given in the form of the identifier of an airport for which official data has not been published.
At the risk of complete threadjack, I'll add that just today I flew from 57D to 6B0 via BUF V2 SYR KRAZZ, cleared altitude 9,000. Soon after I left the airway at SYR, Syracuse Approach came on and told me that Boston Center had some equipment outages preventing them from seeing me at 9,000 and insisted that I either climb to 11,000 or they'd have to put me back on an airway route. I took it that radar monitoring would not have been required on the airway, but was required if I wanted to fly the random route SYR KRAZZ 6B0. Is this incorrect?
Of course. But say you're flying a VOR (not VOR/DME) approach for which the MAP is the runway threshold, defined via timing from an off-field VOR. Is it legal to determine the MAP by measuring the distance from the VOR using a plotter on a sectional or enroute chart and identify it in flight using DME? I don't have a reference but I'm pretty sure I was taught that this isn't legal. And if it isn't on an approach, why should it be legal in a route clearance?
I didn't say that. What's not legal is to accept a clearance direct to the airport without equipment that can provide cross-track and fix passage information, i.e., approved RNAV gear. Nothing wrong with getting a clearance via a radial to a radial-radial fix (or with VOR and DME to a radial/DME fix). You just have to make the clearance match the equipment you have.
Except those compass roses are not official distances for IFR navigation.
No. 91.175 requires that you perform the approach according to the published approach procedure. If they don't put a DME fix at the MAP (that distance inside the D), you cannot legally use DME to determine arrival at the MAP. The big issue is that everything on the IAP chart is surveyed and flight checked for accuracy, so if you make up your own DME fix by measuring with a plotter, you have no way of knowing a) that the measurement is sufficiently accurate, or b) that the DME signal is reliable and sufficiently accurate at that location and altitude.
Yeah, I did run across that later. So a filed random route is exempt from the requirement for radar separation in 5-5-1?
Yes, that's what I understood. So my question then is, can you accept a clearance to 2P2 via direct ESC, direct with only a VOR and DME? (regardless of altitude) If so, how is that different from the VOR approach example? Where do you obtain sufficiently accurate data to identify arrival at 2P2?